Essential Estrogen

[Commentary] If there is one piece of advice given to parents that has remained solid through generations it is this: "Be consistent and follow through."

From the time our children begin to test their boundaries, pediatricians, guidance counselors, therapists and teachers all agree the best thing a parent can do is set limits and adhere to them consistently. If your child is expected to keep food at the dining room table or fill the pet dish each morning, it is your job as an adult and a parent to ensure the rules are followed -- even in times when it would be more convenient if they were broken.

Along those same lines, parents are told to only make threats they will actually carry out. For instance, don't tell your daughter she's going to be kept home from the big game on Saturday if you know in your heart you won't do it. Don't tell your son he won't be allowed to attend the camping trip if you know you're going to let him go regardless of his actions.

It is through these two methods of consistent and fair discipline that our children learn the much needed life lesson of actions having consequences. This lesson has, unfortunately, either not been taught to the current White House administration or it has been forgotten.

Yesterday, the President who three years ago demanded to know who in his administration broke the rules called a sentence handed down in the same case excessive. George W. Bush commuted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison term. Libby was found guilty in March of four counts of perjury and obstruction in a case involving the outing of a covert government operative. The move was made when a U.S. District Judge -- a 2001 Bush appointee -- refused to allow Libby to remain free while appealing his case.

Let's say that I was called by the Girl Scouts and told officials believed that someone in my troop had committed a crime by releasing the secret recipe to thin mints. As troop leader, I went before the council and the press and announced my intention to "smoke the leaker out" and that I would be cooperating completely with authorities. During the course of the investigation, my co-leader's daughter is called in to testify and it becomes obvious to everyone involved that she knows more than she telling. What's worse, she is lying in order to keep investigators from the truth. Eventually, of course, the girl would face strict punishment from council investigators for her misconduct -- even if a direct line could never be drawn between the girl, the co-leader and the secret recipe.

If the council investigators decided the girl should be punished by removal from the troop for a certain period of time and I, as troop leader, intervened on her behalf, what message would I be sending the rest of the girls in my troop? What message would I be sending to the council and their investigators?

There is a reason why parenting is one of the hardest jobs on the planet. It isn't always easy and many times, if you do it well, you break your own heart. At the end of the day, however, it is more important for our children to understand the consequences of their actions than it is for us parents to bask in the immediate popularity that comes with being a rule breaker.

If we want to raise children who are contributing members of society, we have an obligation to teach them the rule of law and show them the consequences of breaking those laws. Just as looking away from the child with her hand in the cookie jar leads to gluttony, falsehoods and excess, looking away from this administration and its misuse of authority has led to gluttony, falsehoods and excess.